| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.356 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.565 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.175 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.230 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.193 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.522 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.980 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Santarém presents a nuanced scientific integrity profile, characterized by a combination of exemplary control in specific areas and significant vulnerabilities in others. With an overall risk score of 0.371, the institution demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its prudent management of retractions, publication in discontinued journals, and hyper-authorship, alongside a commendable independence from institutional journals. These strengths suggest robust internal quality controls. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by critical alerts, most notably a significant risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and high exposure in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These weaknesses could undermine the institution's mission to ensure the "high-level qualification of citizens" and its goal of being an "international reference framework." Practices that inflate metrics without substantive contribution risk compromising the very excellence and societal trust the mission espouses. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Psychology, and Social Sciences, provides a solid foundation of academic achievement. To secure and enhance this standing, it is recommended that the institution leverage its proven governance strengths to develop targeted policies that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its reputational integrity and the sustainable, high-quality impact of its research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.356, a value that indicates a significant risk and is substantially higher than the national average of 1.931. This finding suggests that the institution not only participates in the national trend toward multiple affiliations but actively amplifies it. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this exceptionally high rate signals a potential systemic reliance on this practice. It may reflect strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" that go far beyond the national norm, warranting an urgent review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.112. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its research processes with a higher degree of rigor than the national standard. The data suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective, contributing to a culture of integrity and responsible supervision that successfully minimizes the need for post-publication corrections and protects its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.565, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.134. This disparity indicates that the institution is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This high exposure warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.175, which is below the national average of -0.113. This result points to a prudent and diligent approach in the selection of publication venues. By maintaining a lower rate of publication in discontinued journals than its national counterparts, the institution demonstrates that its researchers are effectively navigating the publishing landscape and avoiding channels that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This careful management helps protect the institution's reputation and ensures its research investments are directed toward credible outlets.
With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is lower than the national average of -0.083. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. The data reflects a commendable norm where author lists appear to be well-justified, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like honorary authorship that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The institution's Z-score of -0.193 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.004, reflecting a prudent and highly positive profile. This negative value indicates that the impact of research where the institution holds a leadership role is particularly strong, a clear sign of robust internal capacity and intellectual autonomy. This performance demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon its own capabilities rather than being dependent on the leadership of external collaborators.
The institution's Z-score of 0.522 is markedly higher than the national average of 0.111, signaling a high exposure to the risks associated with extreme publication productivity. While high output can reflect leadership, this elevated rate suggests a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. It serves as an alert that the institution is more prone than its peers to dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, highlighting a need to review incentives and ensure that the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over sheer volume.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, which contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.290. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids a risk dynamic observed in its national environment. By not relying on in-house journals, it effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This strategic choice ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its credibility and enhancing its global visibility.
With a Z-score of 0.980, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of redundant output than the national average of 0.073. This indicates a high exposure to questionable publication practices. Such a high value alerts to the possibility that data is being fragmented into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, a practice often referred to as 'salami slicing.' This pattern suggests that the institution is more prone than its environment to prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a trend that can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants internal review.
